|
Romney 2016 
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Romney 2016 Buyer's remorse 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
How many of those people polled actually know what Romney really stands for, that's the real question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:How many of those people polled actually know what Romney really stands for, that's the real question. He stands for whatever you want him to stand for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:He stands for whatever you want him to stand for. He was the perfect candidate for White Male America, too bad there were less of them in 2012 than in 1984.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:He stands for whatever you want him to stand for. And if you don't know what you want him to stand for, don't worry, he'll stand for that too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" classic, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago.
PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" sweepstakes, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago. More white. More crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" classic, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago. Not asking them to improve in any way, and saying that they're secretly right. In a choice between doing what is easy and what is right, Republicans choose easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" classic, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago. Cruz didn't get a bad case of cottonmouth during his first big boy primetime moment and arguably more importantly hasn't yet committed the cardinal sin of saying maybe we shouldn't kick out all the brown people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Cruz didn't get a bad case of cottonmouth during his first big boy primetime moment and arguably more importantly hasn't yet committed the cardinal sin of saying maybe we shouldn't kick out all the brown people. Also, for all his faults, he doesn't sound like he's doing a really disturbing Mr. Rogers impersonation where he rails against volcano monitoring shortly before a volcano erupts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" classic, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago. Well aside from the fact that Cruz wasn't even a senator two years ago, Jindal gave a pretty crappy SOTU address and slowly managed to take his 80% approval rating and turn it into a 30% one. Rubio tried (succeeded?) in going centrist on immigration so the base viewed him as a sellout.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Cruz is never going to be as popular as Rubio once was with most Republicans anyway, I think the party has decided not to do the ethnic guy thing anymore and is going to put their eggs in the "white guys + voter suppression" basket.
Lycus fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" classic, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago. Did you not watch Jindal's big prime time response speech?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:How many of those people polled actually know what Romney really stands for, that's the real question. Well look how bad things are under Obama...
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:What happened to thrust Cruz ahead of Rubio and Jindal in the "ethnic guy who the GoP thinks will save it from the yawning abyss of demographic doom" classic, anyway? I could swear I recall more buzz about Rubio, two years ago. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
This isn't why Rubio was excommunicated though. It was because he miscalculated and proposed an action on immigration instead of just loudly clucking and shaking his head at OBAMA's refusal to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
The immigration thing happened around the same time, so it both made him look ridiculous to the American public, and he lost his base shortly after
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Gyges posted:This isn't why Rubio was excommunicated though. It was because he miscalculated and proposed an action on immigration instead of just loudly clucking and shaking his head at OBAMA's refusal to do anything about it. Well yeah, but that's just depressing instead of funny plus the water thing's in the thread title (Senator Agua Bottle).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Has there ever been a State of the Union rebuttal that didn't result in the person giving it having to take at least 3 steps back in their political ambitions? I'm pretty sure no one has ever rebutted the State of the Union so spectacularly that it got them recognition and that best case scenario is everyone completely erases it from their memory by the end of the week. It seems like something no one should want, but every year people are maneuvering to get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Has there ever been a State of the Union rebuttal that didn't result in the person giving it having to take at least 3 steps back in their political ambitions? I'm pretty sure no one has ever rebutted the State of the Union so spectacularly that it got them recognition and that best case scenario is everyone completely erases it from their memory by the end of the week. It seems like something no one should want, but every year people are maneuvering to get. That's probably why the R's gave it to someone they knew had no immediate presidential ambitions this year (not to mention that choosing the highest ranking female member among their ranks helped fight against the "war against women" narrative).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Has there ever been a State of the Union rebuttal that didn't result in the person giving it having to take at least 3 steps back in their political ambitions? I'm pretty sure no one has ever rebutted the State of the Union so spectacularly that it got them recognition and that best case scenario is everyone completely erases it from their memory by the end of the week. It seems like something no one should want, but every year people are maneuvering to get. It's sort of an impossible job, the Prez gives the speech to congress and numerous invited guests, so at least half the room is sympathetic and he's flanked by the second and third in the line of succession while in a giant and majestic room, guaranteed multiple standing ovations. The rebuttal is delivered alone in some forgotten basement office. Not to mention any promises the president makes are theoretically made with the full backing of the executive branch and the commander on chief of the armed forces, where any policies outlined in the rebuttal are made with the full backing of some second or third stringer 90% of people have never heard of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Has there ever been a State of the Union rebuttal that didn't result in the person giving it having to take at least 3 steps back in their political ambitions? I'm pretty sure no one has ever rebutted the State of the Union so spectacularly that it got them recognition and that best case scenario is everyone completely erases it from their memory by the end of the week. It seems like something no one should want, but every year people are maneuvering to get. Bob Dole gave the response in 1994 and 1996 and was the nominee in 1996. Obviously, at that point in his career he wasn't some fresh-faced up-and-comer in the party. In the early 80s the Democrats did a platoon response with people from state and federal government. That's the model the parties should really return to. You can't just put up a single Governor or Congressman against the President and have them look comparable. Instead, put together a slick multi-part presentation about your party's platform and how it would work better than the President's. This would also get rid of the absurd personal story segment of the response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:This would also get rid of the absurd personal story segment of the response. Having a Matt Foley personal story would rule. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Bob Dole gave the response in 1994 and 1996 and was the nominee in 1996. Obviously, at that point in his career he wasn't some fresh-faced up-and-comer in the party. Bob Dole is the rare exception where there was very little Bob Dole could do to hurt Bob Dole's brand. Even still, I'm pretty sure that all Bob Dole did was succeed in best case scenario for the rebuttal and everyone forgot everything Bob Dole said or that Bob Dole even gave the rebuttal. Bob Dole seemed like a good guy, but even though I was a Rush Limbaugh consuming idiotic young Republican at the time I knew that Bob Dole wasn't actually going to become the president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:That's probably why the R's gave it to someone they knew had no immediate presidential ambitions this year (not to mention that choosing the highest ranking female member among their ranks helped fight against the "war against women" narrative). That's who they gave the main one to. They also attempted a shotgun approach with Mike Lee giving the Ted Cruz rebuttal to the SOTU and Rand Paul also gave his own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Bob Dole is the rare exception where there was very little Bob Dole could do to hurt Bob Dole's brand. Even still, I'm pretty sure that all Bob Dole did was succeed in best case scenario for the rebuttal and everyone forgot everything Bob Dole said or that Bob Dole even gave the rebuttal. Bob Dole seemed like a good guy, but even though I was a Rush Limbaugh consuming idiotic young Republican at the time I knew that Bob Dole wasn't actually going to become the president. Bob Dole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Bob McDonnell's response seemed to go over well in the GOP and really boosted his profile at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:That's who they gave the main one to. They also attempted a shotgun approach with Mike Lee giving the Ted Cruz rebuttal to the SOTU and Rand Paul also gave his own. That wasn't a co-ordinated effort though, that was special snowflakes wanting to get a camera on themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
John Thune just started an Instagram account. 2016?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:John Thune just started an Instagram account. 2016? How else is he supposed to get the photographic evidence of his hunting prowess out to the people, Facebook?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
I'm in Texas for the Giants game and just saw a billboard that said: "Run Ted, Run. Please..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I thought Ted Cruz was ineligible because of the whole born in Canada thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I thought Ted Cruz was ineligible because of the whole born in Canada thing. His mom was American, thus he was an American citizen at birth, thus a natural born citizen. (And yes, this would have meant Obama would be eligible even if he was born in Kenya, which he wasn't.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I thought Ted Cruz was ineligible because of the whole born in Canada thing. American parent, though. So he was born a citizen. e: beat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I thought Ted Cruz was ineligible because of the whole born in Canada thing. He's the son of an American citizen. You're born American if you're on US soil or one of your parents are American. Otherwise McCain wouldn't have been ineligible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
So have the Republicans come up with a candidate that isn't either Mitt Romney or a theocratic fascist yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Gyges posted:He's the son of an American citizen. You're born American if you're on US soil or one of your parents are American. Otherwise McCain wouldn't have been ineligible. McCain's case is more of a gray area because he was born in the Canal Zone, which was an American territory and people born in the territories are US citizens. That's how, for example, Governor Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico occasionally gets mentioned as a potential candidate or (more likely) VP pick. Now George Romney, on the other hand, he was definitely not born in the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I thought Ted Cruz was ineligible because of the whole born in Canada thing. He's white. icantfindaname posted:So have the Republicans come up with a candidate that isn't either Mitt Romney or a theocratic fascist yet? "Or"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Joementum posted:His mom was American, thus he was an American citizen at birth, thus a natural born citizen. This might be a stupid question, since it was someone trying to devil's-advocate a stupid argument that I didn't have the legal knowhow to argue against, but I once ran into someone claiming that if he had been born in Kenya, then because his mother had only moved to the US in 1960, according to federal law that wouldn't actually be true. Is there anything to that, or were they just being obstinant for the sake of being obstinant? I feel a little silly even asking this, since I feel like this might just be feeding into the whole birther thing (and it was ridiculous rules lawyering anyway, since he outright agreed that yes he was born in Honolulu anyway), but I'd like to have an actual counterargument the next time we talk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:07
|
|
